On 01/05/2017 08:17 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
>>
>> The logic for sanity_check_meminfo has become difficult to
>> follow. Clean up the code so it's more obvious what the code
>> is actually trying to do. Additionally, meminfo is now removed
>> so rename the function to better describe it's purpose.
>
> s/it's/its/
>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lau...@codeaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labb...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> v2: Fixed code so b9a019899f61 ("ARM: 8590/1: sanity_check_meminfo():
>> avoid overflow on vmalloc_limit") should stay fixed. The casting and
>> assignment
>> still seem ugly.
>
> Are you referring to the initial vmalloc_limit assignment?
>
I was referring to the min_t with u64 that gets assigned to phys_addr_t.
for lowmem_limit
>> @@ -1172,43 +1170,19 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void)
>> for_each_memblock(memory, reg) {
>> phys_addr_t block_start = reg->base;
>> phys_addr_t block_end = reg->base + reg->size;
>> - phys_addr_t size_limit = reg->size;
>>
>> - if (reg->base >= vmalloc_limit)
>> - highmem = 1;
>> - else
>> - size_limit = vmalloc_limit - reg->base;
>>
>> -
> [...]
>
> This leaves a spurious empty line. One was already there before your
> patch but this would be a good opportunity to remove it.
>
> Other than that...
>
> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <n...@linaro.org>
>
>
> Nicolas
>
Thanks,
Laura
